Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is Neil J. Wilkof, Annsley Merelle Ward, Nicola Searle, Eleonora Rosati, and Merpel, with contributions from Mark Schweizer. Read, post comments and participate! E-mail the Kats here

The team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge, Stephen Jones, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Hayleigh Bosher, Tian Lu and Cecilia Sbrolli.

Wednesday, 6 August 2014

It's summertime, and the courts are taking a break, but there are still some cases waiting to be pulled out of the kat-sack and given a bit of attention: here's one of them. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Shaun Coley (trading as BMW Mini Gearbox Centre) is an extempore ruling of Judge Hacon in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, England and Wales, late last month, which this Kat spotted as a note on the Lawtel subscription-only service. The ruling follows earlier unreported proceedings in which BMW succeeded in persuading the court that Coley was infringing its Community and United Kingdom BMW and MINI trade marks by using them in his business's domain name, on his website and in the means which he employed in order to attract consumers to his website, as well as passing his business off as being connected to that of BMW.

This is Coley's website's headingat the time of posting this article

Coley had traded under the names "BMW Mini Gearbox Centre" and "Mini One Cooper Gearbox", and also operated a website with the URL www.minigearbox.co.uk. BMW initially obtained default judgment plus an injunction ordering Coley to stop including the use of BMW's Mini wings logo. Coley tried to set aside this decision, arguing that the trading name of his business had in fact been "Mini One Cooper Gearbox" and not "BMW Mini Gearbox Centre" -- the name of which BMW had complained. The court then held that that did not make any practical difference, as the actual trading name was just as infringing as the other one and therefore equally objectionable. Coley did not dispute the fact that he had used the Mini wings logo and the word MINI in various ways, but argued that he was entitled to do so as he had used the relevant signs descriptively.

Mini sound-alike plus car, but nothreat to BMW's trade marks here

In the application noted here, which BMW kindly commenced in preference to seeking an order of committal for contempt of court, BMW sought declarations that the mark's continued use in Coley's trading name "Mini One and Cooper Gearbox", the use of MINI and COOPER in five expressions in relation to products on Coley's website, the use of Coley's specific domain name and the use of the expression sales "@ minigearbox.co.uk" on that website. In this application, BMW relied on its MINI trade mark and the goodwill associated with it for its passing off claim, and argued that the goodwill it had in the sale of cars and their parts had been used by Coley in his business; that Coley's use of its domain name was an instrument of fraud; that an average consumer would believe that Coley's business was part of BMW's or was closely linked to it; that Coley was taking unfair advantage of the MINI mark it could be inferred that he had adopted the sign to benefit from its power and prestige without paying any compensation to BMW; that Coley's use of the mark MINI was detrimental to the mark's distinctive character and reputation as there was a serious likelihood that it would change the economic behaviour of the average consumer [this, presumably, being the average BMW Mini driver, thinks Merpel, who wonders what characteristics such a person might possess ...] and that Coley's use of the mark was without due cause. Although Coley submitted that he had subsequently revised his website; evidence of that had not been provided to BMW and was not before the court either.

Said Judge Hacon, taking the case by the scruff of the neck, all of the grounds invoked by BMW actually boiled down to a single point: would the average consumer, looking at the website, see the use of the sign MINI and think that the website was either an official BMW website or that of a business that presented itself as somehow linked to BMW?

In reality, held the court, it was not self-evident that the average consumer would be bound to take the view that the website was BMW's official website or a website that was otherwise licensed or approved of by BMW. The decision in the earlier trial might have been coloured by uses of BMW's trade marks other than those complained of here, and the use of signs complained of always had to be seen in context.

Here there was a genuine risk that the website www.minigearbox.co.uk would be perceived as either an official BMW website or as having been licensed or authorised: the fact that the website was accessed through its specific domain name might colour the view of the average consumer. It was unfortunate that "Mini One Cooper Gearbox" was plainly situated above the statement "Welcome to Independent Gearbox Centre" in smaller print: if that had been the other way around, so that the trading name was clearly "Independent Gearbox Centre" and it had stated below it that the website offered reconditioned gearboxes suitable for Mini One and Cooper cars, no doubt the use of the sign MINI would fall on the right side of the law. Unfortunately Coley had not done that: his use of MINI fell on the wrong side of trade mark and passing off law in relation to all of the uses of which BMW now complained -- including use in his domain name.

In practical terms, Judge Hacon noted, it would take very little effort for Coley to adjust the use of the sign MINI so as to make it clear that his primary message was that his business offered reconditioned gearboxes for Mini One and Cooper cars; if that were done, BMW could not object. He also recommended that Coley show BMW the revised website, which might lead to an agreement with BMW under which it could use the sign MINI without any further objection.

This Kat does like the style of the IP Enterprise Court. Apart from the fact that it's cheaper to litigate in than other courts in the jurisdiction, in this case it also offers practical suggestions to the losing defendant (who incidentally represented himself, so often a cause of further problems) as to how he might avoid further legal trouble and reach a modus vivendi with BMW -- a company that has not been timid about litigating to protect its rights [see eg Case C-63/97BMW v Deenik, the case which incidentally establishes the parameters within which Coley can use the motor manufacturer's trade marks]. Merpel is still a little puzzled as to why BMW didn't go straight for the jugular and seek a fine or imprisonment for contempt of court, a step that might deter both Coley and others from treading on its trade marks and which might thereby boost consumer confidence that businesses bandying around the BMW marks and insignia do indeed have some connection with the manufacturer.

IPKat Policies

This page summarises the IPKat policies on guest submissions and comments. If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation. To learn more about our guest submissions, comments and complaints policy and the procedure for lodging a complaint click here.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

Just click the magic box below and get this page translated into a bewildering selection of languages!